Souls/spirits do not exist - hence religions are irrelevant.

[dixxyman]

Thank God there is a believer here. Of course some may say it takes belief in God to accept the mystery of the existence of the soul.
But on the other hand take any one of Thomas Aquinas' proofs of the existence of God and you have to explain why it is not valid.
Of course if there is no is there we are back to Clintonspeak.Any believers in the truth of Clintonian doctrine which has its basis on the fallacy of fellatio (a play on words or parts of the body) needs to believe in the existnce of non existence which is then existence.
If non existence exists there is no argument about existence. If non existence does not exist then it exists as well. Plays on words are not substitutes for thought. It's fun though.
ciao
DMan

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Cris
So here we are talking about things that are defined but can’t be proven to exist.

My assertion was that something undefined cannot exist. The two concepts are quite different.

Cris:

I think you're just slightly off here in the second statement. It's not that undefined things do not / cannot exist but that without definition there is no way to prove or disprove their existence either empirically or logically. In short, there is no basis for the assertion either way... it becomes a meaningless statement.

Without, at least, a basic working definition we might as well be babbling incoherent syllables to each other.

Even with a definition, however, meaning is not assured. The soul, to get back into the topic here, is usually defined in such a way that it remains meaningless. To define it as 'immaterial' or 'supernatural' says absolutely nothing about what a soul is it only tells us what it isn't.

~Raithere

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by dixxyman
let me ask a question since i am not schooled in quantum physics. your use of the word observed implies visualization? how about a computer recording instead?. After all an observation can be 2 dimensional; that which is observed and that which does the observing. You can substitute any non-human implying word(s) and get the same result as in you above construct.

yes. observation means any kind of measurement.

 

[spookz]

raith

To define it as 'immaterial' or 'supernatural' says absolutely nothing about what a soul is it only tells us what it isn't.

and by this process of elimination, we can narrrow the "would be" definition down further and perhaps have an "eureka" moment?

 

[Raithere]

Fantasy

Originally posted by spookz
and by this process of elimination, we can narrrow the "would be" definition down further and perhaps have an "eureka" moment?

Not really. Defining it as supernatural places it purely in the realm of imagination, as we have absolutely no way of verifying anything supernatural.

I'm not beyond considering the possibility that such ephemeral phenomena might be 'real' but at this point all such consideration are simply an exercise of imagination with absolutely no basis for assertion. Everything on this playing field therefore becomes equal; gods and souls having no more reality or justification than giants, fairies, tribbles, or superman.

~Raithere

 

[spookz]

Re: Fantasy

Not really. Defining it as supernatural places it purely in the realm of imagination, as we have absolutely no way of verifying anything supernatural.

when i said "would be" definition, that means it is up for grabs.
i had previously used the term "immaterial" but that was merely for convenience. it is a simple assumption nothing more. as for "supernatural", what is that? what else could a thing be but "natural"?

isnt it a possibility this "soul" could turn out to measurable? thus making it material? do we think that what we know now is all that we can ever know? like that tau particle, we are finding stuff that we never even knew existed. if i were to speculate further, i would say that the "soul" is a fundamental force in the universe and that is hardly supernatural.

Everything on this playing field therefore becomes equal; gods and souls having no more reality or justification than giants, fairies, tribbles, or superman

thankfully , you did not drag out this forums perrenial fave "purple pink dinosaurs" (or something like that)

 

[spookz]

Well technically the object was religion not a god specifically.

and what do you hope to achieve by drawing that distinction

No that doesn’t necessarily follow, some type of god might still exist, just not the one usually considered by Christians etc.

do you mean a god that is not a creator? for instance, a greek or hindu god? the lesser kind of god?



OK, it’s called imagination.

Which sense do you use, sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste?

More imagination and dreaming.

true to form. thanks for not disappointing

But I did say only if such things are detectable.

oops

But you just said that you are not merely your body. Do you think of yourself as a parasite then?

as in i am convinced of it? no. it is just a fun analogy. however, it might be true. i am not that unimaginative to think that this "soul"
would have to be humanlike in nature.

What do you mean by mirror image? You have implied above that you inhabit a body. Who is the human, you or your body?

mirror image? all the qualities that make us human are attributed to this soul. ie: a soul has vision, it can hear, it has desires. basically one anthropomorphizes the soul

So with that logic you would claim that the soul that is you would have no way to know that you are you. What value then is such a vehicle?

i made no such claim. i said the question of identity might not be
as simple as you make out to be. for instance, i am now spookz while my soul could be spookz+(some unknown factor)=a new improved thing/spookz



value? perhaps it would be more prudent to ascertain this "soul"
even exists before endowing it with values, attributes, functions...

I try to make provocative assertions near the limits but supported by at least some logic. I dare others to tear me apart and hence the fun. By probing the boundaries I discover what arguments have merit and which ones fail

i would then urge you to then to drop this soul/god nonsense and investigate this stuff in terms of "consciousness". using mythological definitions and debunking them on those terms is hardly "probing boundaries". it seems more like an opportunity to have fun with the theists

 

[spookz]

chris

Does it? What does it mean to say that something is undefined?

why are you asking me? you are the one who asserted it. see here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and by default anything undefined can’t and therefore does not exist. (chris)

so undefined means nonexistence.(spookz)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

how does what i said differ from yours?

This is not the same as being unable to define something that exists.

what is not the same?

How can you say anything about the existence of something that is undefined?

i'd settle for vague descriptions. thats better than trying to wish it away

ps: eyeball my posts and be kind enough to answer any questions raised that you might have missed

 

[Raithere]

Re: Re: Fantasy

Originally posted by spookz
i had previously used the term "immaterial" but that was merely for convenience. it is a simple assumption nothing more. as for "supernatural", what is that? what else could a thing be but "natural"?

As far as it goes; I agree.

isnt it a possibility this "soul" could turn out to measurable? thus making it material?

Is it possible? Certainly, but from what does one even begin to postulate? I could go spend my life in search of dragons hiding in the Himalayas but is such a pursuit truly worthy of my time?

like that tau particle, we are finding stuff that we never even knew existed.

But unlike the soul the tau particle was first predicted by mathematical calculations that are founded in facts and was then verified by deliberate experiment. Even disregarding the prediction it might have been discovered accidentally and then would have to be explained. Upon what are you founding your prediction? Even given a strong enough reason, how do we even attempt to look for it?

if i were to speculate further, i would say that the "soul" is a fundamental force in the universe and that is hardly supernatural.

The four fundamental forces of nature are manifest. Our understanding of them, in fact, is what allowed us to predict the tau particle. Where does the soul fit in?

thankfully, you did not drag out this forums perrenial fave "purple pink dinosaurs" (or something like that)

The others are more developed, which is why I chose them, but the point is the same. With nothing upon which to ground such notions they are merely fantasy. What would you say if I told you that tribbles were overrunning my house and spilling out into the back yard? What if I started running around exclaiming that we needed to exterminate them before they overrun the planet? In short order I would likely be locked in a padded room... yet most of the world's population does exactly the same thing regarding God and the soul with no more reason.

Now, I know I come across strongly but I truly don't mean to offend. I mean to challenge these things because they are so vehemently believed, typically without much in the way of analysis or critical thought. You'll come to whatever conclusions you come to and that is fine with me but do so thoughtfully.

~Raithere

 

[spookz]

well in that case i am afraid i must continue to be thoughtless.



it is apparent that what you hold to be "thoughtful" is abiding by the physicalist view that consciousness is somehow produced by the brain and electrical impulses can account for all the subjective states of awareness, sentience and feeling we experience. i do not discount this as a possibilty. however, i also allow and make room for other explanations (see my quoted texts in this thread)

I mean to challenge these things because they are so vehemently believed, typically without much in the way of analysis or critical thought

i merely entertain possibilities, none of which are as farfetched as your outrageously fictional examples (padded room? what on earth are you insinuating here?). to ponder upon the nature of the mind seems to come naturally to me and does not involve any fanaticism at all.

yet most of the world's population does exactly the same thing regarding God and the soul with no more reason.

that is them. god does not make sense to me

as for the "analysis and critical thought" comment... do you expect to find that in a religious forum?



ps: i am not offended. i respect your opinion

 

[Persol]

It's nice to think about what 'You' and 'Your soul' are... but at the moment all we have is the brain. Anything else is just a guess. I'd love to discuss various views on it, as long as we all realize that we might be wrong (and probably all ).

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by spookz
it is apparent that what you hold to be "thoughtful" is abiding by the physicalist view that consciousness is somehow produced by the brain and electrical impulses can account for all the subjective states of awareness, sentience and feeling we experience. i do not discount this as a possibilty. however, i also allow and make room for other explanations

No, I too am willing to leave the question unanswered for now. However, I do believe that by far best bet is indeed the physicalist position for two primary reasons. One, thus far all of the answers we have found have been in the physicalist arena. Two, I believe that the what and how of consciousness is not really quite so difficult a question as we tend to think it is. To qualify that second statement I would use the analogy of weather. While the details of weather are extraordinarily complex (so much so that it is impossible to entirely predict) the basic mechanisms involved are rather simple (solar energy causing evaporation and air currents).

i merely entertain possibilities, none of which are as farfetched as your outrageously fictional examples (padded room? what on earth are you insinuating here?). to ponder upon the nature of the mind seems to come naturally to me and does not involve any fanaticism at all.

Glad to hear it... and it is fascinating to ponder.
(The padded room comment was meant to deliberately evoke reaction... not necessarily from you (call it trolling, if you will). Although I do find it hypocritical that people who desperately believe something based upon purely subjective reasons feel free to judge others who are doing the same.)

as for the "analysis and critical thought" comment... do you expect to find that in a religious forum?

Yes, actually. I feel it is every individual's responsibility. Of course, I am often disappointed to find it otherwise.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

Oh wait!

Cris,

I do believe all knowledge is tentative (due to the "brain in a vat" conundrum -> you can't say it isn't the matrix), and one can never "know everything" (partially because everything is always changing).

 

[Cris]

Wes,

one can never "know everything"

I think you mean that at the moment we can't know everything. Which means you don't know enough to say "never".

Perhaps when we have evolved a tad more and appear godlike that 'never' might not seem so insurmountable.

 

[UltiTruth]

Originally posted by Raithere
In short, there is no basis for the assertion either way... it becomes a meaningless statement.

...which means that a soul is possible but has not been identified within our scientific knowledge yet.
Why, I speculate that the planet Pluto has just souls full of it, and we have no way to assert it either way. We are just frogs in a well!

 

[UltiTruth]

Re: Re: Fantasy

Originally posted by spookz
thankfully , you did not drag out this forums perrenial fave "purple pink dinosaurs" (or something like that)

Why spookz, here:

Originally posted by Cris
Why do you ask? What evidence do you have for the non-existence of invisible flying green elephants?

 

[Cris]

Ulti,

So the neutrino did not exist 5000 years back just because it was not defined, and sprang to its existence once it was defined by the wise men?

I suspect I could make a case for the differences between ‘something’ versus ‘everything’ or ‘anything’, but then I think my argument rests more on semantics rather than logic. Your point is fine and that is clearly not what I mean. Rait makes the point more logically but I wanted to go beyond that but I don’t think I can with the wording I chose.

Cris, I would also like to know if you think some other senses other that the five we have could exist at all, and if they do, what they might be like. And if they do, are they defined and do they exist?

To say that something could exist requires some evidence, and I don’t think there is any such evidence. Beyond that requires speculating and the exercise of imagination, neither of which indicate any degree of potential truth.

And do you know everything that exists?

Not yet, but one day would be nice.

Exists in what dimensions of time & space?

Define dimensions, or are you just fantasysing?

 

[Cris]

Ulti,

...which means that a soul is possible but has not yet identified within our scientific knowledge yet.

No, that is not correct. You can’t say anything about the possibility of something without some evidence to support such a claim. Using your reasoning we would be equally justified in saying souls are impossible but that hasn’t been identified within our scientific knowledge.

Without evidence you can’t say whether souls exist or are even possible.

Why, I speculate that the planet Pluto has just souls full of it, and we have no way to assert it either way.

Exactly, and you can’t say that such a status is possible either. This is just your imagination, which is the same case for souls.

 

[Cris]

Raithere,

It's not that undefined things do not / cannot exist but that without definition there is no way to prove or disprove their existence either empirically or logically. In short, there is no basis for the assertion either way... it becomes a meaningless statement.

Yes I know but I was somewhat bored with that position and tried to take it further. Oh well.

 

[UltiTruth]

Originally posted by Cris

Ultitruth:Cris, I would also like to know if you think some other senses other that the five we have could exist at all, and if they do, what they might be like. And if they do, are they defined and do they exist?
Cris: To say that something could exist requires some evidence, and I don’t think there is any such evidence.

Why, bats (flying mammals) produce ultrasonic waves and also have receptors to perceive and analyze the reflected waves. They navigate using this information.
Vipers (snakes) have a loreal pit that allows to "see" heat! These are scientific facts and hopefully suffice as evidence to the fact that more senses than the five that we have exist. Which obviously is a pointer that there is quite a lot below our nose that we are not able to perceive. We don't even perceive the ultrasonics! (Maybe souls are coexisting with us at this moment- like the users of ouija boards vouch.) And more significant is that we are not even in a position to visualize how the other senses might be like. What if there are a 100,000 and we just have 5? And all our great knowledge base is just based on these five! Could Entamoeba histolytica have a dozen of these senses that we never know about?

Beyond that requires speculating and the exercise of imagination, neither of which indicate any degree of potential truth.

Speculation and imagination are the root of all inventions. Aren't they? The moment we lose these with our closed minds, we get stagnant.

Ultitruth: And do you know everything that exists?
Cris:Not yet, but one day would be nice.

So you cannot deny a soul yet.

Define dimensions, or are you just fantasysing?

At the moment, we are not even aware of what exists in planets of our solar system, or even all the planets in the system for that matter. And the extent of the universe itself is not even imaginable. So as I said, all that you think exists is what you think exists on the earth today. And do you have answers on whether the soul existed 100000 billion years back or would it a 100000 years later?
Another question I have is why we are not able to replicate a brain, with all our scientific achievement?- it should just be some circuits and connections, right?

Ultitruth: ...which means that a soul is possible but has not yet identified within our scientific knowledge yet.
Cris: No, that is not correct. You can’t say anything about the possibility of something without some evidence to support such a claim. Using your reasoning we would be equally justified in saying souls are impossible but that hasn’t been identified within our scientific knowledge.

So you agree you cannot deny the existence of a soul, in the first place? or in other words, the likelihood of existence or non-existence of a soul is equal, based on our information.
We will come to whether or not it exists next.